If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Nicely glossed over.
If it was so easy to fix, why was it necessary to call in Romney to fix the problem? Anyone can simply ask for federal tax dollars especially for something like the Olympics right?
Let's look at the situation.

You avoided my stimulus point, how Romney not only supported Stimulus spending but put forward a plan that made Obama/Clinton’s look conservative, and have subsequently tried to explain away how it’s totally acceptable that Romney borrows money from the federal government but not anyone else. I will quickly pause and note that it doesn’t matter why Romney borrowed the money, it’s whether he did or not. He did and is praised for it. Anyways, this sort of cognitive dissonance is not uncommon and deserves a closer look.

Part of your own support of Romney comes from, and I quote, “His integrity/character”. As well, you continue to post defenses of Romney using his own websites as some sort of statement of fact. Is acting hypocritical a positive or negative quality when it comes to integrity? And why should we believe anything Romney says in his own websites? Let’s break it down into two categories, pre-presidential election campaign and post presidential election campaign:

Stimulus spending!Pre-Presidential election:

“Mitt Romney offered an ambitious plan Friday to try to forestall a recession, proposing a $250 billion economic stimulus package with sweeteners for supply-side conservatives, older Americans and corporations. Mr. Romney’s proposal, outlined in a telephone interview during a campaign swing through Nevada, is grounded in new, permanent income tax reductions. It is also double the size of stimulus packages offered by two of the Democratic presidential candidates, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and far exceeds the $145 billion plan that President Bush suggested to Congress on Friday.”

“Mitt Romney rounded out a week focused on what he views as overspending by the federal government with a critique of President Obama's stimulus program during a speech in front of what opponents call New Hampshire's "bridge to nowhere."Romney has argued throughout the campaign that Obama's $787-billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a waste of money that did little to jump-start the economy — and he has charged that the federal government has inflated the job numbers associated with various projects.”

Former -- and perhaps future -- Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney talked with radio host Don Imus Wednesday morning about his views on abortion rights.
"Now, when you changed your mind abortion and went from pro choice, I guess, to pro-life, what -- walk me through the, what caused that," Imus asked.

"Well, you know, I never really called myself pro-choice, but I did say when I was running for governor that I would keep the law as it was," Romney responded.

Health Care (specifically individual mandate, because Romney has said he would keep much of Obamacare)!Pre-election:

“Mitt Romney’s support for an individual mandate as part of his signature health care legislation in 2006 has never been in doubt. But emails unearthed between then Massachusetts Governor Romney and top staffers reveal how close he was to the crafting of “Romneycare” and provide details on how he persuaded a skeptical Democratic legislature to adopt the provision.

It’s unclear how insurance companies could cover those with preexisting conditions without the individual mandate for everyone to buy insurance -- part of the law Romney has said he would repeal if it isn’t struck down by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Romney’s standing among conservatives is being hurt by a letter he sent to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts saying that he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Senator Edward M. Kennedy, his opponent in a Senate race, in a position that stands in contrast to his current role as a champion of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
“We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” Mr. Romney wrote in a detailed plea for the support of the club, a gay Republican organization.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has signed a pledge sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage promising to support a federal constitutional amendment "defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

As governor of Massachusetts, he signed the first permanent state ban on assault weapons.
“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said at the bill-signing ceremony in 2004, according to a news release issued by the governor’s office at the time. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

“I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons,” Romney said during a Florida debate in 2008. “I instead believe that we have laws in place that, if they’re implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people.”

Back in 2002, Romney said, "I'm against tax increases. But I'm not intending to, at this stage, sign a document which would prevent me from being able to look specifically at the revenue needs of the Commonwealth." At that time, his spokesman called the no-tax pledge "government by gimmickry."

Norquist dismissed recent criticism of the pledge by prominent Republicans like former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, and pointed out that a majority of Republicans in the House and Senate, along with the GOP’s presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, have all signed the pledge.

“It’s not necessary for somebody to sign the pledge to not raise taxes,” Norquist said. “[Jeb Bush] is not running for president. Romney is [running] and Romney’s made that commitment, so that’s sort of a settled question at the national level for Republicans. And, again, you have a strong majority of the Republicans in the House and Senate who have just made sure that we’re not going to be raising taxes, and with President Romney he’s committed to vetoing any net tax increase.”

With just 50 days to go until Election Day, the Republican presidential candidate plans to reinforce the specifics of what he would do as president, offering voters a rationale for his candidacy by specifically addressing what he would do to help struggling middle-class families at a time when more voters are beginning to pay attention to the years-long presidential campaign.

Sensing a potential opening, Mitt Romney is shifting his focus back to foreign policy amid controversy over the Obama administration's response to a terrorist attack in Libya that left four Americans dead

I could literally keep going. So, why should anyone take any of your posts seriously when you use Mitt Romney's own websites as some sort of defense for him? Do any of these shifts reflect positively on his integrity? And what would Mitt Romney have to do to earn the label RINO from you?

You were using the term wrong. The statement you highlighted in Locke's post is not an oxymoron by any definition of the term (as it does not contain the phrase "intelligent liberal"). The only "effect" of which was to produce ironic laughter considering the joke you were making was that liberals are by definition not smart.

You should use "incorrect" when referring to factual information. I was using the term incorrectly. It was a joke! "Intelligent liberal" was implied when I used the term. That is the whole point of the joke. Even if I spelled it out for you, it would still not be considered a true oxymoron. Again, it was a joke! You know this, but would rather be a smart aleck. If you want to come across as an intellectual, you should work on your grammar and punctuation.

You should use "incorrect" when referring to factual information. I was using the term incorrectly. It was a joke! "Intelligent liberal" was implied when I used the term. That is the whole point of the joke. Even if I spelled it out for you, it would still not be considered a true oxymoron. Again, it was a joke! You know this, but would rather be a smart aleck. If you want to come across as an intellectual, you should work on your grammar and punctuation.

Perhaps you should make a funny joke next time then? That one fell flat...

If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
maybe you would never have to hurt again...

You avoided my stimulus point, how Romney not only supported Stimulus spending but put forward a plan that made Obama/Clinton’s look conservative, and have subsequently tried to explain away how it’s totally acceptable that Romney borrows money from the federal government but not anyone else. I will quickly pause and note that it doesn’t matter why Romney borrowed the money, it’s whether he did or not. He did and is praised for it. Anyways, this sort of cognitive dissonance is not uncommon and deserves a closer look.

Part of your own support of Romney comes from, and I quote, “His integrity/character”. As well, you continue to post defenses of Romney using his own websites as some sort of statement of fact. Is acting hypocritical a positive or negative quality when it comes to integrity? And why should we believe anything Romney says in his own websites? Let’s break it down into two categories, pre-presidential election campaign and post presidential election campaign:
…
I could literally keep going. So, why should anyone take any of your posts seriously when you use Mitt Romney's own websites as some sort of defense for him? Do any of these shifts reflect positively on his integrity? And what would Mitt Romney have to do to earn the label RINO from you?

SMH
I can see you really put a lot of work into this rebuttal, but I am afraid you are only hurting your cause.

Stimulus spending!
Romney’s $250 billion stimulus plan utilizes supply side economics as you indicate in your quotations, and the purpose of such a stimulus is to provide tax incentives for people to go back to work and to create jobs. In contrast, Obama’s $840 billion Keynesian stimulus plan which has created an army of czars to oversee this mess and a supposedly accountable GAO (part of the GSA) that cannot be trusted to be fiscally responsible on a trip to Vegas. That sounds like a lot more government bloat.

Yes, Romney would have been spending money in the form of a stimulus, but with a different purpose than creating crony capitalism and keeping all his union buddies and financial backers happy. The ultimate goal would be to recoup that money over time, rather than buy everybody off.

Is there a Conservative precedent for Romney stimulus plan? Why yes there is… Ronald Reagan did it last time (in 1981) when there was an economic downturn due to Jimmy Carter’s mess. And no one would ever accuse Reagan of being a RINO since he is the poster-child for the modern GOP. You can also quickly compare those two here if you would like.

Also, last time I looked, $250 billion is still a lot less than $840 billion.

Abortions! Gay Rights!
Yay…social issues! Most of which I find irrelevant in this particular election, since I feel this sidetracks from the main issue which is the economy. Let’s address it anyway.

So contrary to popular belief, Romney wasn’t always a Conservative. He started as an Independent before becoming a Republican. His beliefs and opinions on various issues have evolved over time.
Based on your evidence Romney never was really comfortable with being called “pro-choice” but was never quite as outspoken about being “pro-life” as he is today. He does believe the exception to the rule to be rape, incest or life-threatening issues as a result of childbirth.

Originally Posted by Spesh

”Well, you know, I never really called myself pro-choice, but I did say when I was running for governor that I would keep the law as it was," Romney responded.

He did flip from being politically pro-choice to pro-life while he was Governor, but he has never flopped back to being pro-choice again. Mitt has always been personally pro-life, but didn't feel confident to impose his values on others until he was confronted with more information as Governor of Massachusetts.

Does Mitt Romney support gay rights?]Mitt Romney has pledged to fight discrimination based on sexual orientation and supports the same rights for all citizens. However, marriage is not a right because it is a religious institution that the government has no right to legislate.

Again, let’s see pro-life, hates discrimination and believes in the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and woman. Is Romney a RINO yet?

Gun Control!
"I do support the Second Amendment. I would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-gun lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow more people to--to have guns for their own legal purposes…I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That’s the right that people have." - 1/24/08 at Boca Raton, FL debate

So you are saying Romney had to play referee on a particular gun bill? Romney is a member of the NRA and a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Don’t see any problems there either.

Tax Pledges!
Ok, now we are reaching. So the issue is not with taxes themselves, but whether he was a proponent of “pledges.” Mitt initially thought them as gimmickry, and then he realized that voters needed these sort of reassurances because of their inherent mistrust of politicians. In either case, Romney has made it clear he doesn't like raising taxes. I can get behind that.

Health Care!
And now to retort a site called http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com. I have already touched upon the differences between “Obamacare” and “Romneycare” previously. In fact when I used www.mittromneycentral.com, it was used only for illustrative purposes to show the differences between the two plans. The rest of my points came from Wikipedia. Also the former site that I used was created by his supporters not the Romney campaign. Still it’s more unfiltered than what you would get from the New York Times, but I digress.

“Romneycare” and “Obamacare,” while they serve a similar purpose, again take a different approach to achieve those mean just like the aforementioned stimulus plans.
Simply put, Mitt feels healthcare should be unique to the state or local community. It should not be a one-size-fits-all plan on a national scale, nor should it punish businesses for having full-time employee or infringe upon the religious rights of various groups (see Catholics and Obamacare).

“Obamacare” doesn’t do that, so guess what he wants it repealed. “Obamacare” may get shot down yet because it lacks a severance clause, and may go again before the Supreme Court because it does infringe upon religious freedoms.

Campaign focus!
So I take it you have never heard of politicking? Romney is running for President, and if Obama is has other shortcomings he is more than willing to point them out.

Right now Obama is dealing with two issues (or scandals) regarding national safety. Fast and Furious and the Benghazi Bombing Cover-up are going to have people question Obama’s “integrity” or at least that of his administration. It is becoming apparent that Obama and his staff are becoming overwhelmed when it comes to foreign relations matters.
While the economy is an important issue, the safety of Americans is also right up there.

In summary, Romney harkens back to Reaganomics; is a pro-lifer, believes in traditional marriage; is a proponent of the 2nd amendment and gun ownership; believes in less government and taxes; feels that un-enumerated powers belong to the states (such as healthcare decisions); plus he is big on the safety of our borders and that of Americans globally. This doesn’t sound like a RINO to me.

While you try to simply dismiss one of my links because it purports to tell us where Mitt Romney actually stands, it beats having to interpret the pre-filtered articles of the mass media that pretends to know what Mitt is all about. I guess that's unfair because it makes it too easy to make my case, I guess.

I think next time I’ll just take a page out of the book of Dolphins9954 and just put up a youtube video.
Actually, why wait? After all, the title of this thread is also why we should also “vote against Obama.”

So contrary to popular belief, Romney wasn’t always a Conservative. He started as an Independent before becoming a Republican. His beliefs and opinions on various issues have evolved over time.

Key sentences.

His opinion evolved when it was popular to. You spent your entire post justifying each position, but you cant justify his inconsistency. I never asked what each position was, as i posted the before and after i knew what the postions were, i asked why should i trust him. You couldnt answer. Also find it hilarious Obama was involved in your post. Only time i mentioned him was the point out Romney had a similar stimulus, key word, plan(plan being the direction, not the degree which Obama kicked up more and Romney later stated it still wasnt enough). Goes to show, you cant make a case for Romney without trying to discredit Obama.

If you cant justify his consistency at previous moments in time, why should we believe him at this moment in time? The answer is: we cant. His views could change tommorow.

And small government isnt allowing the government to prevent people from getting legal medical procedures and preventing marriages to take place because your uncomfortable. Thats big government intrusion into everday life. You know, a RINO(view).